Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	church_n	pope_n	rome_n	4,587	5	6.8117	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A59898	A vindication of a passage in Dr. Sherlock's sermon preached before the honourable House of Commons, May 29, 1685 : from the remarks of a late pretended remonstrance, by way of address from the Church of England, to both Houses of Parliament.	Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707.	1685 (1685)	Wing S3369; ESTC R202693	19,865	30

Pope Martin the Fifth in his Bull for confirmation of this Council speaks very home to the Case That all Hereticks and their followers of both Sexes and those who hold and defend such Heresies or communicate with such Hereticks publickly or secretly in Religious Offices or any other way though they shine in the Dignity of Patriarchs Arch-Bishops Bishops Kings Queens Dukes or any other Ecclesiastical or Secular Title shall be pronounced Excommunicate in the presence of the People every Sunday and Holy-day And that the Archbishops Bishops and Inquisitors shall by our Authority diligently inquire concerning them who hold defend or receive such Heresies and Errours of what Dignity State Preheminence Degree Order or Condition soever they are and if they be found quilty shall by the foresaid Authority proceed against them by punishments of Excommunication Suspension Interdict as also of deprivation of their Dignities Offices and Benefices Ecclesiastical and also of their Secular Dignities and Honours and by any other Penalties Sentences Ecclesiastical Censures which they shall judge fitting even by taking and imprisoning their Persons and executing upon them any corporal Punishments with which Hereticks use to be punished according to the Canonical Sanctions This is the Council which our Author tells us expresly declares that the King-killing Doctrine or Murder of Princes excommunicated for Heresie is damnable and heretical as being contrary to the known Laws of God and Nature and yet for ought I can perceive by this Bull the greatest Emperour in the world if he be a Heretick or a Favourer of Hereticks if the Pope have as much power as authority may be burnt as John Huss and Ierom of Prague were by this Council The account of that Article Quilibet Tyrannus in short is this The Duke of Burgundy had caused Lewis Duke of Orleans to be murdered Johannes Parvus a Divine of Paris to justifie this action defended that Proposition That a Tyrant might be killed by any of his Subjects without expecting the Sentence or Command of any Judge which Mariana asserts to be certainly true and that the onely difficulty is to know who is a Tyrant So that this is a true Commonwealth-Principle like the seventeenth Article of John Wickleff which was condemned also in this Council Populares possunt ad suum arbitrium dominos delinquentes corrigere The people may correct their Lords or Governours when they do amiss according to their own will and pleasure And this I grant is not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which reserves this power wholly to it self though it has been defended by many Jesuits such as Mariana and Suarez from whence our late Rebels learnt their Maxims of Government But these two Questions ought to be carefully distinguished or else we may indeed injure the Church of Rome Whether the People have an inherent right in themselves to Depose or Punish or Murder Tyrannical Princes and whether the Pope have authority to Depose Princes for Heresie or other causes and to Absolve their Subjects from their obedience The first is not the Doctrine of the Church though it be of many Jesuits but is expresly condemned by this Council though Mariana truly observes that the condemnation of this Proposition Quilibet Tyrannus is not confirmed by the Popes Bull as the condemnation of the Articles of Wickleff and Huss expresly is which gives some suspicion that he did not much like it especially considering what Gerson tells us that this Doctrine of Johan Parvus was branched out into nine Articles and he was very zealous to have had them all distinctly condemned but could not obtain it and therefore complains Errorem illum non sufficienter sed valdé diminute damnatum esse That this Errour was not sufficiently but very imperfectly condemned which he attributes to that kindness many of them had for the Duke of Burgundy However I do not find this Doctrine defined in any of their General Councils and it is condemned though Gerson says imperfectly in this and therefore is not to be accounted the Doctrine of the Church of Rome But as for the Popes Deposing power it is not onely asserted by Jesuits but decreed by their Councils and therefore must be accounted the Doctrine of their Church But our Author proceeds That no Catholicks as Catholicks believe that the Pope hath any direct or indirect authority over the Temporal Power and Jurisdiction of Princes so that if the Pope shall pretend to absolve or dispence with his Majesties Subjects from their Allegiance upon account of Heresie and Schism such Dispensation would be vain and null and all Catholick Subjects notwithstanding such Dispensation or Absolution would be still bound in Conscience to defend their King and Country at the hazard of their Lives and Fortunes even against the Pope himself in case he should invade the Nation And yet we see that Popes challenge this Deposing power and their Councils own and decree it and where to find the Roman Catholick Faith but in the Decrees of their Popes and Roman Catholick General Councils I cannot guess And if we may take and leave what we please of their Councils and be good Catholicks still I see no reason why we may not reject the Decrees of their Councils about Transubstantiation Purgatory Indulgences the Invocation of Saints and Worship of Images and continue as good Catholicks as they are who renounce the Authority of their Councils as to the Deposing Doctrine I am sure the Council of Constance would have condemned these men for Hereticks who should presume to reject any Doctrine which this or other General Councils had determined for in the Bull of Martin V. in the Articles of Inquiry after Hereticks they were to ask them this Question among others Whether he believed that what this holy Council of Constance representing the Vniversal Church hath approved and doth approve in favour of the Faith and the salvation of Souls is to be held and approved of all Christian people and what it hath and doth condemn as contrary to Faith and good Manners that is to be held and believed and professed by them to be condemned It were easie to multiply Testimonies to this purpose as the Deposition of the Emperour Frederick II. in the General Council at Lyons by Pope Innocent IV. the Breve of Paul V. to the English Catholicks against taking the Oath of Allegiance but my Author has given no occasion to proceed any farther He appeals to the General Council of Constance and I joyn issue with him here and leave it to every man to judge whether that Council has decreed the King-killing Doctrine or Murder of Princes Excommunicated for Heresie to be damnable and heretical The first of those three Treatises against the Oath of Allegiance which are published by the Title of The Jesuits Loyalty proves at large that the Deposing Doctrine is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome by several very material Arguments 1. That Popes have taught it as sound

A Vindication OF A PASSAGE IN Dr. Sherlock's SERMON PREACHED Before the Honourable House of Commons May 29. 1685. FROM THE Remarks of a late pretended Remonstrance By way of Address from the Church of England To both Houses of Parliament Imprimatur C. Alston R. P. D. Hen. Episc. Lond. a sacris Domesticis Julii 6. 1685. LONDON Printed for I. Amery at the Peacock in Fleetstreet and A. Swalle at the Vnicorn at the West-end of St. Paul's Church-yard 1685. A VINDICATION OF A Passage in Dr. Sherlock's Sermon c. WHen I first saw that Pamphlet which bears the Title of A Remonstrance by way of Address from the Church of England to both Houses of Parliament with some Remarks upon Dr. Sherlock's Sermon I was not so curious to examine the Contents of that Paper as to see what he had to say against that Sermon which received so great an Approbation from the House of Commons and turning over the Page I was soon directed by the Margin to the place where I find these words prickt out for the subject of his Remarks I deny not but some who are Papists in some junctures of affairs may and have been very Loyal but I am sure the Popish Religion is not the English-man may be Loyal but not the Papist and yet there can be no security of those mens Loyalty whose Religion in any case teaches them to Rebel Now this being an Address from the Church of England which is so well acquainted with Popish Loyalty any one would in reason have expected that the Doctor should have received a Reprimand for touching that Cause so gently and in my Conscience had any one attacked him there he would have found more trouble and been put to more shifts in vindicating the Personal Loyalty of Papists than in proving that the Popish Religion does not teach Loyalty which is the Accusation brought against him by the Author of this Remonstrance that he charges the Popish Religion with being Disloyal though some who are Papists may be Loyal And I should have wondered at the discretion of this Writer had he given any Specimen of Wit or Understanding in any thing else that he would engage in so baffled a Cause The better way had been to have thanked the Doctor for his Complement and to have left the Doctrine of their Church to have shifted for itself But I confess I have so great a kindness for the Doctor that I am unwilling he should continue under so scandalous an Imputation of having charged the Church of Rome with any Doctrines which she dishowns which had at all times been very wicked but at this time had been folly and madness and therefore not to enter into the Merits of the Cause which this Writer has given no just occasion for I shall onely very briefly consider what he urges in vindication of the Popish Loyalty The first Argument he uses to prove that their Religion does not teach them to Rebel is because they themselves though they are very zealous for their Religion deny that it does Do both in their publick Writings and private Discourses declare and maintain that their Religion teaches no such Doctrine and that they are ready to maintain and practise true Loyalty with the hazard of their Lives and Fortunes As for their practising true Loyalty I shall civilly wave that because the Doctor has thought fit to do so and therefore it is no Argument against him for it is no new thing for men to act contrary to the Principles of their Religion and sometimes to be better than their Religion in its just consequences teaches them to be as I charitably hope many Roman Catholicks are But who are these men and what is their Authority who teach that the Deposing Heretical Kings or those who are Favourers of Hereticks is no Doctrine of the Church of Rome I say the Deposing Doctrine for I grant they do not teach Rebellion by that name for when a Prince is deposed by the Authority of their Church they absolve their Subjects from their Fealty and then it is no Rebellion to Rebel And I wish our Author had not some such reserve in those doubtful terms Rebelling and True Loyalty for to resist and dethrown a deposed Prince is not Rebellion according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome nor to defend him True Loyalty But does this Gentleman think we have no other way of knowing the Doctrine of their Church but by what they say is the Doctrine of their Church Suppose some of these Sayers be so ignorant that they know not what is the Doctrine of their Church some so crafty as to conceal it some so heretical as to deny it and to be censured and excommunicated for it at Rome what does their saying so or so signifie to us who have the authentick Decrees of their Popes and Councils They are very angry with us when we alleadge the Testimonies of their private Doctors though of the greatest Note and Eminency among them whose Writings have been published with the greatest Authority and received with the greatest Applause and yet they have the modesty to send us to an Irish Remonstrance and the Writings of P. W. or to the renowned Author of the Roman Catholick Principles to learn the Doctrine of the Church of Rome admirable Vouchers for the Church of Rome some of whom at least are no better than Apostates themselves and are condemned for such at Rome Suppose we should be perswaded by the Authority and Rhetorick of this Author that the Church of Rome does not teach the Deposing Doctrine and should assert it against all the Jesuits in the World and one of them should answer in the very words of this Remonstrance What reason has any man to say that our Religion does not teach us to Rebel that is to Depose and Murder Heretical Princes when we who are so jealous of our Religion that we voluntarily suffer the loss of our Estates our Liberties and our Lives rather than renounce the least tittle of it do both in our publick Writings and private Discourses declare and maintain that our Religion does teach the Deposing Doctrine and that we are ready to maintain and practise it with the hazard of our Lives and Fortunes What a fine case are we in now when the Doctrine and Practice of the Jesuits proves that the Deposing Doctrine is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and the Doctrine and Practice says our Author of some other nameless Party proves that it is not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and yet I see no reason why the Jesuits may not pass for as good Catholicks as any other Order amongst them nor why Baronius and Bellarmine and Suarez c. may not be thought as good Catholick Doctors as some few late Writers This Argument then will prove nothing because it proves both parts of a contradiction to be true that the Deposing Doctrine is and is not the Doctrine of the Church

Doctrine proving it from Scripture and Tradition and condemned the contrary as erroneous in Faith pernicious to Salvation wicked folly and madness and inflicted Censures on them that held it 2. That Popes have in the highest Tribunals of the Church deposed Soveraign Princes and absolved their Subjects from their Allegiance and this with the advice and consent of their Councils and not onely Patriarchal but sometimes even General 3. That Popes and General Councils by them confirmed have denounced Excommunication to such as should obey their Princes after such Sentence of Deposition and Absolution of their Subjects from their Allegiance 4. That a General Council confirmed by the Pope hath made a Cannon-law regulating the manner of Deposing Princes in some case and absolving their Subjects from their Allegiance 5. That all Catholick Divines and Casuists that have treated of it from the first to the last after Calvin's time in all the several Nations of Christendom have asserted this power of the Pope without so much as one contradicting it in all that time 6. That all Catholick Emperours Kings yea even they that were deposed States Magistrates and Lawyers and finally all the Catholicks in the world for the time being have by tacit consent at least approved and received this Doctrine of Popes Divines and Casuists and these Censures Canons and Practices of Popes and General Councils This is enough in all Conscience if it be well proved as I think truly the greatest part of it is to prove the Deposing Doctrine to be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and when there is so great and potent a Party among themselves who appear so zealous in this Cause I cannot understand what fault the Doctor committed in charging them with that which they are so ambitious to be charged with If it be a Calumny Popes and Councils Divines and Casuists and Lawyers are the Authors of the Calumny not those who believe it upon their report who are the properest Judges what authority it is they challenge and all the world knows what it is they exercise as often as they can There is indeed an Answer given to this Treatise by one of those Catholick Divines as they call themselves who will not own this to be the Doctrine of the Church I read it over with great zeal and expectation to see it confuted which I profess I should have been very glad to have seen fairly done for I take no pleasure in the Errours and Mistakes of any Church and I think he has proved that those Kings and Emperours who were deposed did not like the Deposing Doctrine as any one would guess and I confess I thought it at first a bold attempt in the Author of that Treatise to prove the contrary which is the onely matter of fact wherein he has apparently the better of his Adversary but as for other matters excepting the Opinions of all Catholick Divines and Casuists before Calvin which may admit of some debate he yields it all and laughs at his Adversary for taking so much pains to prove what no body denies viz. that Popes have taught this Doctrine that Popes and Councils have made such Decrees and have actually executed them upon Kings and Emperours and that their most eminent Divines and Casuists have defended this Doctrine and justified such Decrees and Practices but yet he says all this does not prove it to be the Doctrine of their Church nor de fide Now this does not concern the Doctor who did not meddle with their Church nor Articles of Faith but asserted that the Popish Religion is not Loyal and that in some cases it teaches Subjects to Rebel Now if the Doctrine and Decrees of Popes and Councils be no part of the Popish Religion whether they be in a strict sence Articles of Faith or not if the Decrees of Councils to depose Heretical Princes or the Favourers of Hereticks and to absolve their Subjects from their Allegiance do not teach Subjects to Rebel in such cases then indeed the Doctor may be mistaken especially if it be any comfort to a deposed Prince that he is deposed by vertue of a Decree of Popes and Councils but yet the Popes power of Deposing Princes is no Article of Faith But yet it may be of good use to set this matter in a clear light and to hear the utmost that can be said to vindicate the Church of Rome from teaching so pernicious a Doctrine as this And what the Answerer to the first Treatise against the Oath of Allegiance says is contained in a narrow compass and I shall reduce it into as easie a method as I can The truth is I generally like what he says very well and think he has proved that it ought not to be the Doctrine of the Church and that no man is bound to believe it whatever Church teaches it but I think he has not proved that it is not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome He frankly acknowledges that this Deposing Doctrine has been taught by Popes and has been decreed by General Councils which our Remonstrancer denies let us hear then how he vindicates the Church of Rome from teaching such a Doctrine and truly I cannot find that he ever attempts it 1. He says indeed this is not the Doctrine of the Church and we believe it is not if by Church he means the Universal Church of all Ages but yet it may be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which teaches a great many Doctrines which the Primitive and Apostolical Churches never heard of and therefore though it be true what he says That all the Ages before Gregory the Seventh were positively against the Deposing Doctrine That this was a Doctrine brought in in the Eleventh Century against the Judgement and Practice of Ten before That the Fathers were not of this mind and a great deal to this purpose yet this does not prove that the present Church of Rome does not teach this Doctrine which is plain matter of fact to be seen in the Decrees of their Popes and Councils as he himself acknowledges Thus he proves That this Doctrine is not an Article of Faith For two things are necessary to make an Article of Faith First That the Point have been originally revealed by Christ And Secondly That this Revelation have been preserved by an uninterrupted and uniform Practice of the Faithful and if any of these conditions are wanting he denies any engagement of the Church in these concerns or that the Church has believed taught or practised this Deposing Doctrine that is to say If any Church teaches such Doctrines as have not the true Characters of Articles of Faith she does not teach true Articles of Faith but yet such Doctrines may be Articles of Faith in the Church of Rome though they be not Articles of the Catholick Faith for if no Church can make Articles of Faith for her self which are not Articles of the Catholick Faith then no Church can be guilty